Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study

Authors: Thomas Harder, Cornelius Remschmidt, Sebastian Haller, Tim Eckmanns, Ole Wichmann

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Given limited resources and time constraints, the use of existing systematic reviews (SR) for the development of evidence-based public health recommendations has become increasingly important. Recently, a five-step approach for identifying, analyzing, appraising and using existing SRs based on recent guidance by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was proposed within the Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT). However, case studies are needed to test whether this approach is useful, what challenges arise and how problems can be solved.

Methods

In two case studies, the five-step approach was applied to integrate existing SRs in the development of evidence-based public health recommendations. Case study A focused on the role of neonatal sepsis as a risk factor for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Case study B examined the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. For each step, we report the approach of the review team, discuss challenges and describe solutions.

Results

For case study A, one existing SR was identified, while in case study B four SRs were eligible for analysis. We found that comparison of inclusion criteria alone was sufficient to judge on relevance of SRs in case study A, but not B. Although methodological quality of all identified SRs was acceptable, risk of bias assessments of individual studies included in the SRs had to be repeated in both case studies. Particular challenges appeared in case study B where multiple SRs addressed the same research question. With the help of spreadsheets comparing the characteristics of the existing SR we decided to use the most comprehensive one for our evidence synthesis and supplemented the results with those from the other SRs.

Conclusions

In both case studies using the complete SR was not possible. The five-step approach provided useful and structured guidance and should be routinely applied when using existing SRs as a basis for evidence-based recommendations in public health. In situations where more than one SR has to be considered, the development of spreadsheets comparing characteristics, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, included studies and outcomes seems useful.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):776–82.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Harder T, Abu Sin M, Bosch-Capblanch X, Bruno C, de Carvalho GH, Duclos P, Eckmanns T, Elder R, Ellis S, Forland F, et al. Towards a framework for evaluating and grading evidence in public health. Health Policy. 2015;119(6):732–6.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Robinson KA, Whitlock EP, Oneil ME, Anderson JK, Hartling L, Dryden DM, Butler M, Newberry SJ, McPheeters M, Berkman ND, et al. Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs. Syst Rev. 2014;3:60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Robinson KA, Chou R, Berkman ND, Newberry SJ, Fu R, Hartling L, Dryden D, Butler M, Foisy M, Anderson J et al.: Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance. J Clin Epidemiol 2015
6.
Haller S, Deindl P, Cassini A, Suetens C, Zingg W, Abu Sin M, Velasco E, Weiss B, Ducomble T, Sixtensson M et al.: Neurological sequelae of healthcare-associated sepsis in very-low-birthweight infants: Umbrella review and evidence-based outcome tree. Euro Surveill 2016, 21(8).
7.
Lee E, Dobbins M, Decorby K, McRae L, Tirilis D, Husson H. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Alshaikh B, Yusuf K, Sauve R. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of very low birth weight infants with neonatal sepsis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinatol. 2013;33(7):558–64.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Dryden DM. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982–93.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Mak TK, Mangtani P, Leese J, Watson JM, Pfeifer D. Influenza vaccination in pregnancy: current evidence and selected national policies. Lancet Infect Dis. 2008;8(1):44–52.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Fell DB, Platt RW, Lanes A, Wilson K, Kaufman JS, Basso O, Buckeridge D. Fetal death and preterm birth associated with maternal influenza vaccination: systematic review. BJOG. 2015;122(1):17–26.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Galvao TF, Silva MT, Zimmermann IR, Lopes LA, Bernardo EF, Pereira MG. Influenza vaccination in pregnant women: a systematic review. ISRN Prev Med. 2013;2013:879493.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Bawazeer GA, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E. Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2014;3:CD001269.
16.
McMillan M, Kralik D, Porritt K, Marshall H: Influenza vaccination during pregnancy: a systematic review of effectiveness and adverse events. The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports; Vol 12, No 6 (2014). 2014.
17.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Ioannidis JP, Zhou Y, Chang CQ, Schully SD, Khoury MJ, Freedman AN. Potential increased risk of cancer from commonly used medications: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(1):16–23.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
23.
24.
Panesar SS, Rao C, Vecht JA, Mirza SB, Netuveli G, Morris R, Rosenthal J, Darzi A, Athanasiou T. Development of the Veritas plot and its application in cardiac surgery: an evidence-synthesis graphic tool for the clinician to assess multiple meta-analyses reporting on a common outcome. Can J Surg. 2009;52(5):E137–145.PubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, Davies P, Kleijnen J, Churchill R, group R. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52(6):377–84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Hartling L, Hamm MP, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Hempel S, Shekelle P, Dryden DM. Testing the risk of bias tool showed low reliability between individual reviewers and across consensus assessments of reviewer pairs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):973–81.CrossRefPubMed
28.
29.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. W264.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Thompson MG, Li DK, Shifflett P, Sokolow LZ, Ferber JR, Kurosky S, Bozeman S, Reynolds SB, Odouli R, Henninger ML, et al. Effectiveness of seasonal trivalent influenza vaccine for preventing influenza virus illness among pregnant women: a population-based case–control study during the 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 influenza seasons. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;58(4):449–57.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zaman K, Roy E, Arifeen SE, Rahman M, Raqib R, Wilson E, Omer SB, Shahid NS, Breiman RF, Steinhoff MC. Effectiveness of maternal influenza immunization in mothers and infants. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1555–64.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Black SB, Shinefield HR, France EK, Fireman BH, Platt ST, Shay D, Vaccine Safety Datalink W. Effectiveness of influenza vaccine during pregnancy in preventing hospitalizations and outpatient visits for respiratory illness in pregnant women and their infants. Am J Perinatol. 2004;21(6):333–9.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Hulka JF. Effectiveness of polyvalent influenza vaccine in pregnancy. Report of a controlled study during an outbreak of Asian influenza. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;23:830–7.PubMed
34.
Munoz FM, Greisinger AJ, Wehmanen OA, Mouzoon ME, Hoyle JC, Smith FA, Glezen WP. Safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(4):1098–106.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Yeager DP, Toy EC, Baker 3rd B. Influenza vaccination in pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 1999;16(6):283–6.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Englund JA, Mbawuike IN, Hammill H, Holleman MC, Baxter BD, Glezen WP. Maternal immunization with influenza or tetanus toxoid vaccine for passive antibody protection in young infants. J Infect Dis. 1993;168(3):647–56.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Lin SY, Wu ET, Lin CH, Shyu MK, Lee CN. The safety and immunogenicity of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccination: a study of maternal-cord blood pairs in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e62983.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Nordin JD, Kharbanda EO, Benitez GV, Nichol K, Lipkind H, Naleway A, Lee GM, Hambidge S, Shi W, Olsen A. Maternal safety of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(3):519–25.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Benowitz I, Esposito DB, Gracey KD, Shapiro ED, Vazquez M. Influenza vaccine given to pregnant women reduces hospitalization due to influenza in their infants. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51(12):1355–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Eick AA, Uyeki TM, Klimov A, Hall H, Reid R, Santosham M, O'Brien KL. Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(2):104–11.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Poehling KA, Szilagyi PG, Staat MA, Snively BM, Payne DC, Bridges CB, Chu SY, Light LS, Prill MM, Finelli L, et al. Impact of maternal immunization on influenza hospitalizations in infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6 Suppl 1):S141–148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
France EK, Smith-Ray R, McClure D, Hambidge S, Xu S, Yamasaki K, Shay D, Weintraub E, Fry AM, Black SB, et al. Impact of maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on the incidence of acute respiratory illness visits among infants. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(12):1277–83.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Chambers CD, Johnson D, Xu R, Luo Y, Louik C, Mitchell AA, Schatz M, Jones KL, Group OCR. Risks and safety of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: birth defects, spontaneous abortion, preterm delivery, and small for gestational age infants. Vaccine. 2013;31(44):5026–32.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Dodds L, Macdonald N, Scott J, Spencer A, Allen VM, McNeil S. The association between influenza vaccine in pregnancy and adverse neonatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(8):714–20.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Legge A, Dodds L, MacDonald NE, Scott J, McNeil S. Rates and determinants of seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnancy and association with neonatal outcomes. CMAJ. 2014;186(4):E157–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Louik C, Ahrens K, Kerr S, Pyo J, Chambers C, Jones KL, Schatz M, Mitchell AA. Risks and safety of pandemic H1N1 influenza vaccine in pregnancy: exposure prevalence, preterm delivery, and specific birth defects. Vaccine. 2013;31(44):5033–40.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Omer SB, Goodman D, Steinhoff MC, Rochat R, Klugman KP, Stoll BJ, Ramakrishnan U. Maternal influenza immunization and reduced likelihood of prematurity and small for gestational age births: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS Med. 2011;8(5), e1000441.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
Sheffield JS, Greer LG, Rogers VL, Roberts SW, Lytle H, McIntire DD, Wendel Jr GD. Effect of influenza vaccination in the first trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(3):532–7.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Steinhoff MC, Omer SB, Roy E, El Arifeen S, Raqib R, Dodd C, Breiman RF, Zaman K. Neonatal outcomes after influenza immunization during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ. 2012;184(6):645–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Irving SA, Kieke BA, Donahue JG, Mascola MA, Baggs J, DeStefano F, Cheetham TC, Jackson LA, Naleway AL, Glanz JM, et al. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine and spontaneous abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(1):159–65.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study
Authors
Thomas Harder
Cornelius Remschmidt
Sebastian Haller
Tim Eckmanns
Ole Wichmann
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0347-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Systematic Reviews 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products

Protocol

How lay health workers tailor in effective health behaviour change interventions: a protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis

Methodology

Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research

Protocol

Comparison of registered and published intervention fidelity assessment in cluster randomised trials of public health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review protocol

Research

Interventions in sports settings to reduce risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm: a systematic review